Mary, Queen of Scots, and the Murder of Lord Darnley Page 25

  Mary must have understood that Maitland was not just referring to divorce, for she answered firmly, “I will that you do nothing by which any spot may be laid to my honour or conscience, and therefore I pray you rather let the matter be in the estate as it is, abiding till God of his goodness put remedy thereto, than you, believing to do me service, may possibly turn to my hurt and displeasure.” She was, it seems, prepared to wait until either she or Darnley died, rather than permit her Lords to remove her husband by underhand means, and the fact that she insisted that nothing be done that was detrimental to her honour proves that she feared that it might be.

  Unperturbed, Maitland replied, “Madame, let us guide the matter amongst us, and Your Grace shall see nothing but good and approved by Parliament.” This rather patronising conclusion to the conversation implied that such an issue would be better resolved by men than left to a woman’s limited understanding, but it must have been clear to Mary that there was no way of freeing herself from Darnley without endangering the succession or compromising her good name. Moreover, she cannot have come away from this meeting without some impression that the Lords intended to get rid of her husband by fair means or foul; unwittingly, she had already told them that she was prepared to wait until death solved the problem of Darnley.

  There is ample corroboration of the Protestation in other sources. Although Huntly and Argyll never had a chance to sign that document, they were among the signatories to a paper drawn up by Mary’s Scottish supporters in 1568, which states that, at Craigmillar, the Lords “caused make offers to our Sovereign Lady, if Her Grace would give remission to them that were banished, to find causes of divorce, either for consanguinity, in respect they alleged the dispensation was not published, else for adultery; or to get [Darnley] convicted of treason because he consented to Her Grace’s retention in ward; or what other ways to dispatch him; which altogether Her Grace refused, as is manifestly known.”9The Protestation, however, is not so specific regarding Mary’s rejection of “other ways” to dispatch Darnley.

  Leslie states that the Lords offered to procure a divorce if the Queen pardoned Morton, but that “she would not consent to it, though she were moved thereto by a great number of her nobility, and by such as [later became] her greatest adversaries.” Nau claims that the Lords “fomented discord between the King and Queen by underhand dealings, and then recommended a divorce in order to deprive them of all lawful succession.” This is the interpretation that Mary herself had chosen to place upon events by the 1570s.

  Buchanan, in The Book of Articles of 1568, written before the Protestation was drawn up, states that, when Mary came to Craigmillar, “in the audience of Moray, Huntly, Argyll and the Secretary”—Bothwell is not mentioned—she referred again to her wish to be rid of the King. In this account, however, it is Mary, and not Maitland, who suggests a divorce on the grounds of consanguinity, and Buchanan says that someone else, not Mary, voiced the objection that, if such a divorce were granted, the Prince “should be declared bastard, since neither the King nor she contracted that marriage as ignorant of the degree of consanguinity wherein they stood.” Hearing this, the Queen “utterly left that opinion of divorce.” A similar account is in Buchanan’s Detectio of 1571.

  Lennox, however, says nothing of this discussion, since his source for much of his Narrative was Darnley himself. What Lennox does say, which Buchanan omits, is that, at Craigmillar, the Council resolved to have Darnley imprisoned after the baptism. The fact that this never happened is perhaps proof enough that it was never an issue, but it may have been one of the proposed solutions to the problem of what to do about Darnley.

  When, in 1569, Moray learned of the contents of the Protestation, he denied that anything was said in his presence at Craigmillar “tending to any unlawful or dishonourable end.” At that time, however, Moray had good reason for wishing to dissociate himself from what had taken place there.

  It has been suggested that the Lords meant all along to embroil their Catholic Queen in a plot to do away with Darnley and thus bring about her downfall, leaving them free to rule in the name of her infant son, whom they would raise as a Protestant. There is no proof of this, but it is certainly possible, for not only was it the ultimate outcome of the Darnley plot, but it would not have been the first time that the Lords had attempted to overthrow or undermine Mary. Now that she had a son, there was more justification than ever for them to do so. Although the evidence suggests that, in December 1566, their chief aim was the restoration of the exiled Lords, there may well have been a wider aspect to their plan that was not discussed with Bothwell. What is likely is that the discussions that took place at Craigmillar were the beginnings of the plot that led to Darnley’s murder, and that the prime movers were Maitland and Moray.

  It was later asserted by both Lennox and Leslie—writing on behalf of both sides—that the Lords plotted the assassination of the King at Craigmillar, and indeed, it is hard to believe that the matter was not touched upon in private by the five nobles who had brought up the matter of divorce with the Queen. Lennox claimed that the time and manner of Darnley’s murder were devised at Craigmillar, but this may be discounted because the evidence strongly suggests that these arrangements were made much nearer the time. Leslie states categorically that Moray, Bothwell and others, at Craigmillar, “consulted and devised this mischief.” Furthermore, the “Protestation of Huntly and Argyll” concludes: “We judge in our consciences, and hold for certain and truth, that Moray and [Maitland] were authors, inventors, devisers, counsellors and causers of the murder, in what manner and by whatsoever persons the same was executed.”

  These Lords had little reason to love Darnley, and had bitterly resented him almost from the first. He was a Catholic, a troublemaker and an embarrassment, and the Queen’s desperation to be rid of him was welcome news to them, which is why they appeared so overtly sympathetic towards her. In fact, they were eager to exploit her marital problems to their own advantage. Neither they nor their fellow nobles would have wished to see a reconciliation between the royal couple, for this would inevitably have seen Darnley restored to ascendancy over them, which was an intolerable prospect. The Protestant Lords hated him for his betrayal of the fugitive Lords, and Moray and Maitland had long had personal scores to settle with him. They may well have considered that it was worth risking the penalties for high treason in order to do away with him.

  There is good evidence that, whilst at Craigmillar, several Lords entered into a Bond for the murder of Darnley, much as they had done for the murder of Rizzio, who had also fallen foul of them. No such Bond has survived, but one of Bothwell’s followers, James Ormiston, confessed, just before his execution in 1573, that he had been shown and read the bond by Bothwell in April 1567. Bothwell had told him that the Bond was his security, and when Ormiston expressed doubts about this, the Earl replied, “Tush, Ormiston, ye need not take fear of this, for the whole Lords have concluded the same long since in Craigmillar, all that were there with the Queen, and none dare find fault with it.” Six years later, displaying a remarkable memory, Ormiston quoted the substance of the text of the Bond, which read:

  It was thought expedient and most profitable for the Commonwealth, by the whole nobility and Lords underscribed, that such a young fool and proud tyrant should not reign or bear rule over them; and that, for divers causes therefore, that these all had concluded that he should be put off by one way or another; and whosoever should take the deed in hand, or do it, they should defend and fortify as themselves.

  Ormiston added that the bond had been drawn up “a quarter of a year before the deed was done”10and signed by Huntly, Argyll, Bothwell, Maitland and Sir James Balfour.11It should be said that, by 1573, all of these men had fallen foul of the government in one way or other, and that it is highly likely that this was an edited list of signatories.

  Ormiston stated that Bothwell had told him that the subtle, devious lawyer, Sir James Balfour, was enlisted to draw up the Bond, which seems likely; acc
ording to Nau, who must have got his information from Mary, who had seen the Bond and doubtless recognised the handwriting, it was written out by Alexander Hay, one of the Clerks of the Council. In the original text, Balfour is unlikely to have used the word murder, as seems clear from Ormiston’s statement.

  The fact that, between 5 and 10 December 1566, Balfour’s brother Robert was granted by the Queen the provostry of Kirk o’Field,12the house where Darnley was to be murdered, has been seen by some historians as sinister, yet it is almost certain that it was not until several weeks later that this house was chosen as a lodging for the King, after others had been rejected.

  In December 1567, another of Bothwell’s men, John Hepburn of Bolton, stated in his confession that Bothwell had shown him a Bond that listed “some light causes against the King, such as his behaviour contrar the Queen.” This document was signed by Huntly, Argyll, Maitland and Bothwell: when asked if he had seen Balfour’s name, Hepburn denied it, but declared he would warrant that Balfour was the principal deviser of the deed; this part of his confession was suppressed by the government, and does not appear in the official record.13It would have been strange for Balfour to have instigated the plot against Darnley, his fellow Catholic and friend, unless of course he wished to dissociate himself from the disgraced King, or unless he was playing a double game, which is possible. There have been several theories that Balfour was in fact acting in concert with Darnley to destroy the Protestant establishment in Scotland, and that he was luring them into a trap. It is important to bear this in mind when charting Balfour’s movements over the next weeks.

  MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS “The most beautiful in Europe.”

  FRANCIS II & MARY, QUEEN OF SCOTS Francis was Mary’s “sweetheart and friend.”

  JAMES STEWART, EARL OF MORAY “At deeds of treachery and blood, Moray looked through his fingers.”

  SIR WILLIAM MAITLAND OF LETHINGTON His contemporaries called him “the Scottish Machiavelli.”

  JOHN KNOX “He neither feared nor flattered any flesh.”

  JAMES DOUGLAS, EARL OF MORTON “The most accomplished and perfidious scoundrel.”

  HENRY STUART, LORD DARNLEY “He was so weak in mind as to be a prey to all that came about him.”

  MEDAL STRUCK TO COMMEMORATE THE MARRIAGE OF MARY AND DARNLEY “She has given over unto him her whole will to be ruled and guided as himself best likes.”

  DOUBLE PORTRAIT OF MARY AND DARNLEY Marital harmony “lasted not above three months.

  DAVID RIZZIO He was often with the Queen “privately and alone.”

  HOLYROOD PALACE In this tower, in Mary’s apartments, was enacted one of the bloodiest deeds of her reign.

  MARY’S BEDCHAMBER IN HOLYROOD PALACE The open door leads to the supper room. The entrance to the secret stairway from Darnley’s room below is concealed in the wall behind the bed-curtains.

  THE MURDER OF RIZZIO “Justice! Justice! Save me, my Lady, I am a dying man!”

  THE OLD PALACE IN EDINBURGH CASTLE Mary retreated here after Rizzio’s murder.

  THE BIRTH CHAMBER OF JAMES VI, EDINBURGH CASTLE Here was born Mary’s son. The frieze and panelling are of later dates.

  Hepburn added that, on the night of Darnley’s murder, “he thought that no man durst say it was evil done, seeing the handwriting and acknowledging the Queen’s mind thereto.” He seems to have inferred from what he had seen—or been told by Bothwell—that Mary had given her consent to the murder, but, had there been any evidence of this in the original document, the Lords, and later Buchanan, would certainly have made use of it to destroy her.

  A third adherent of Bothwell, John Hay of Talla, stated on the scaffold in January 1568 that Huntly, Argyll, Maitland and Balfour had all entered into a Bond to murder Darnley.

  Nau says that the murder of Darnley was the result of the bond, and that Moray, Huntly, Bothwell, Maitland and Balfour “protested that they were acting for the public good of the realm, pretending that they were freeing the Queen from the bondage and misery into which she had been reduced by the King’s behaviour. They promised to support each other and to avouch that the act was done justly and lawfully by the leading men of the Council. They had done it in defence of their lives, which would be in danger, they said, if the King should get the upper hand and secure the government of the realm, at which he was aiming.”

  According to Nau, Bothwell gave the Craigmillar Bond to Mary in June 1567, just prior to her capture by the Lords. In 1580, Balfour claimed that it was in his possession, but was unable to produce it as evidence at Morton’s trial the following year. He had probably been bluffing in order to gain favour with Morton’s accusers, for the Lords had almost certainly taken the incriminating document from Mary years before and destroyed it.

  In his answer to the Protestation, Moray wrote, “In case any man will say and affirm that ever I was present when any purposes were holden at Craigmillar in my audience, tending to any unlawful or dishonourable end, or that ever I had subscribed any bond there, or that any purpose was holden anent the subscribing of any bond by me to my knowledge, I avow they speak wickedly and untruly, which I will maintain against them, as becomes an honest man, to the end of my life.”14He was not saying that a Bond had not been drawn up at Craigmillar, merely that he had not subscribed to it. But Bishop Leslie and Nau were both certain that he had signed it. Neither Ormiston nor Hepburn listed Moray among the signatories, but their confessions had been edited by a government that had its own interests and reputation to preserve.

  Maitland had said that Moray would “look through his fingers,” and although Moray was afterwards to protest that he had never done nor approved of anything that was unlawful, he must have known about the plot against Darnley, and may even have initiated it, but he remained detached from it. Yet, of all those involved, he was to be the chief beneficiary.

  Mary, it appeared, would also benefit from the removal of her husband, and there is no doubt that she had compelling reasons for wanting to be rid of him. Many, then and now, have seen her despair at being chained to Darnley and her bitter resentment against him as strong enough motives for having him killed or approving a plot to kill him. In 1568, Lennox, anxious to bring Mary to justice for the unlawful killing of his son, claimed that, although Mary had pardoned and forgiven many of those involved in Rizzio’s murder, she “yet continued still in her deadly hatred towards her husband, till she had his life. Shortly after her coming to Craigmillar, she with her accomplices invented and resolved the time and manner of the most horrible murder of her most innocent and loving husband.” The flaws in this latter statement are only too apparent, as we have seen.

  Hepburn thought that the Queen had given her consent to the murder, but his confession was extorted by a government whose business it was to demonstrate that Mary was guilty. He may well have spoken in good faith, having been reassured by Bothwell that the Queen had given her approval, but this is not sufficient evidence to prove that she had. Mary must have guessed that the Lords were plotting something criminal, or at least sinister, or she would not have warned them not to compromise her honour or her conscience; yet her concern did not extend to warning Darnley that he might be in danger. She must therefore have been truly desperate to be rid of him, and so bitter towards him that she did not care what befell him.

  It has often been alleged that Mary’s chief motive for wishing to be rid of Darnley was her wish to marry her lover, Bothwell. According to Buchanan, after the birth of her son, “her secret criminal intentions began to show themselves. Having by one way or another got rid of the King, she would marry Bothwell. And lest she herself be suspected of the crime, she began gradually to sow the seeds of discord between the King and the Lords, to drive them into a deadly feud.” After the Craigmillar conference, “she never left her intention of destroying the King, as may well be perceived from what followed.” There is no reliable evidence to support this statement, and, since Darnley himself was doing a pretty good job of alienating the Lords, there was littl
e need for Mary to whip up a feud between them. Furthermore, there is no credible testimony that she was involved in an affair with Bothwell at this time, and not one of the Lords, nor any other contemporary observer, saw Mary’s growing distaste for Darnley as a consequence of her supposed passion for Bothwell. However, there can be little doubt that Bothwell now played a very important role in Mary’s life, and that she relied on him heavily. It would not be surprising, given the events that were to take place after Darnley’s death, if there was already some sexual or emotional chemistry between them.

  Buchanan also alleges that Mary “was incited to this [murder] by letters from the Pope and the Cardinal of Lorraine.” Certainly these men were inciting her to do murder, yet not to eliminate her husband, whose much-publicised devotion to Catholicism would have precluded their urging such a course, but to do away with most of the Protestant establishment in Scotland.

  With the christening approaching, the problem of Darnley had to be shelved for the moment, although the Lords did not cease to work for the return of the exiles.15On 7 December, Mary left Craigmillar for Edinburgh, where she intended to finalise the arrangements for the baptism,16which was to be delayed because the Savoyard ambassador, Moretta, had still not arrived in Scotland. After three nights at Holyrood, the Queen travelled on to Stirling. On the way, she bruised her breast whilst riding17and was in some discomfort when she arrived at the castle on 12 December.